When did early Christianity become corrupt if it ever did?

[marywarfield]

Gnosticism predates Christianity, yes, but that doesn’t mean its not Christian, when I study the gnostic exegesis all I see is the Christology of Jesus Christ, the very nature of Christ. They are Christians.

Also I am not speaking of gnosticism in this thread, I am explaining how the orthodox Church became corrupt when they suppressed the secret Pauline mystery tradition of the Valentinians.

A. The Church did not “suppress a secret Pauline mystery”.
They squished writings of a man claiming to be Paul’s
disciple. Why? The writings have nothing to do with
“Christ” but instead Valentinus put forth a Christ who
had no material physical body, as a result never
suffered and died, therefore never resurrected.
We don’t know who that person is but definitely
not Christ or Christian in origen.

 

[andrewstx]

The truth is that Christ was sent not by the maker of this world but by Abraxas, the supreme Aeon, the historical Jewish Jesus which you are speaking of is the psychic son of the demiurge. The pneumatic Christ descended upon Jesus at the time of his baptism and flew out of his body just before he was crucified because resurrection has not been promised to bodies.

Yes, Valentinianism (at least) is very close to orthodox biblical canon, in fact many Valentinians worshipped along side orthodoxy and were active in all religious matters of the orthodoxy without even being recognized as heretics. The difference is only in the grace and gifts that each one has received from our Holy Father, Jesus Christ.

What?
I must have missed something for I don’t understand a thing you are saying? Are Valentinianes gnostic or related? No disrespect intended, I am really at a complete loss.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

In response to Drac

I get the feeling if we are to argue what an author should have included and what he should not have included we might end up surprised with a lot of things. We could also expect a lot of things from many different authors, so its very hard to draw implications from silence. Very hard unless the silence is overwhelming and In Paul’s case I do not think it is. Consider the Ladder of Divine ascent by John of the Ladder, he barely mentions anything concerning the priesthood or clergy or liturgical life of the Christian. Yet as a monk he would have been quite familiar with these doctrines. Taking your line of argumentation it makes no sense that he should have neglected to mention it. We could mention that Justin Martyr nowhere mentions the four gospels by name but we know from the Diatessoron, a later work by his disciple Tatian that Justin more than likely had in mind the four gospels of Mathew Mark Luke and John when he mentioned the Memoirs of the apostles.

Paul’s silence is not evidence that he did not have the encounter described in acts, it is only evidence of silence that which we have concerning Paul’s own words is very limited. Another example I might give is Josephus, he nowhere mentions this apostate Jewish missionary called Paul who went to many different locals all over the empire. In fact none of the writers whom are non Christian that reference to early Christianity make reference to Paul and the communities he helped fortify and establish. Do we conclude on the basis of that, therefore Paul did not have these missionary efforts? No, we conclude that they either did not know or felt they had no reason to bring it up.

Plus I think it’s important to remember the genre of epistle writing, it is not extensive, it is not thoroughly encompassing. You as a Muslim can agree that Jesus was born of a virgin right? That the early church certainly believed in this right? Yet Paul nowhere makes reference to this most wondrous miracle. No doubt it was an important miracle, yet all Paul says is that Christ was born of a woman. So I am not convinced by your reasoning, silence is not automatically negation, even if the event may seem overly important to us.

As to Paul’s statement that he did not consult anyone, therefore meaning that contradicts what we see in acts him preaching to the Jews, I do not consider this a contradiction. By consulting he is obviously talking about the apostles and stressing that he did not need the apostles to reveal Jesus to them but he had received a special revelation from the Lord. He of course buttresses this claim by then saying he later went and conversed with the apostles (releasing the need to be in communion with them). He most certainly did not consult the Jews in acts, rather he testified to them of Christ, that he was the Christ and proved it from the scriptures. How many of us would desire that sort of gift no?

In response to Pleroma

In terms of the idea of the demi urge, I see no reason to associate it with the secret or true teachings of Jesus Christ. We would have to do away with the gospels and with all of the New testament if that is the case, for they all clearly show a faith and dependency on the Old testament for their claims concerning Jesus and their baseline Judaic faith. Jesus in terms of being understood historically is to be best understood as a Jew, not as a cynic philosophy or neo Platonist, such ideas are rather unsatisfactory in explaining many of the gospel sayings.

We cannot make sense of Luke’s account of resurrection that Jesus, the risen Christ ate fish. What is the spiritual interpretation to that?

I do not see in the writings of the New Testament the clearly defined gnostic systems we see fully developed in the second century, mid second century that is. Rather we see a faith which has at its root a Judaic outlook on the world, that God, the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob was working through Israel to bring something into the world, namely Jesus Christ.

 

[dronald]

Yeah, I knew that. I personally don’t think Peter ever said that, though.

Hm.

What do you believe about Peter?

As far as I know, the Bible had not yet been translated into arabic in the 7th century, so it would’ve been impossible to have quoted Deuteronomy 18:18 specifically. I don’t know who the first person was, of Muhammad’s era or the generations thereafter, who knew the content of Deuteronomy and interpreted verse 18 to be speaking of Muhammad [peace be upon him]. We do believe that he was foretold, though, so the early muslims did believe that, they just didn’t have access to an arabic translation of the Bible (and most of them were illiterate anyhow).

Muhammad and Muhammad’s closest companions (then companions of companions) would have known the words of the Torah as the Qur’an is explicit that Muslims should look therein to prove their beliefs; is it not?

Regardless, Muhammad being a Prophet never mentioned this passage; can we then conclude that Muhammad didn’t even think that this passage was about him? After all, he was completely silent on it and so was Allah in the Qur’an. This is the sort of thing that you’re saying about Paul and his trip, but surely someone knew this passage and could claim it was about Muhammad.

All that being said, is there any way you could find me something tangible of the first person to conclude that Deut 18:18 was about Muhammad? I am interested in the history of this claim to back up your assertion.

I find it unlikely that the two accounts are compatible. In acts 9:20 you have Paul immediately preaching in synagogues in Damascus, while in Galatians 1:16-18, Pauls says that he didn’t consult with anyone, but went to Arabia.

Paul immediately preaching in the synagogues in Damascus “after some days with the disciples there.”

The Greek reads Os de eplerounto hemerai hikanai. The words hemerai hikanai translate literally as “days considerable (many).” The word hikanai means “sufficient, considerable, much.” When referring to a number, it means “abundant, great, much.” When referring to time, it means “a long time.”

19 and taking food, he was strengthened. For some days he was with the disciples at Damascus. 20 And immediately he proclaimed Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God.”

According to Paul, he did not immediately consult with anyone and Paul must have went to Arabia right about here:

18 And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized; 19 and taking food, he was strengthened.

The Acts picks up the story in Damascus which Paul actually mentions in his letter:

17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

Then we look at verse Acts 9:23 which confirms that Paul waited a long time:

23 When many days had passed, the Jews[a] plotted to kill him, 24 but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night in order to kill him, 25 but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall,** lowering him in a basket.

Not only does the Acts mention “A considerable time” and “Many days have passed” but Paul confirms that it was three years before he made it to the Apostles.

And as I’ve mentioned, Paul reiterates his story of the basket in 2 Corinthians. I don’t fully understand why it’s a problem for you that The Acts doesn’t mention what went on in Paul’s trip to Arabia; perhaps because he didn’t do anything while there is reason enough not to record anything. Remember, “I did not immediately consult” can be a short time while in Arabia, or it could have been a while; all we know is he did go back to Damascus which is confirmed by The Acts, and he certainly preached there.

See my response to Ignatian. I made a mistake. I apologize.
That’s actually in 2 Corinthians 11, but anyhow, yes, there is a parallel there.

And I apologize as well! Haha, we’re one for one on the tiny blunders.

So what does this parallel mean to you? Was it a conspiracy? The truth?

I don’t doubt that Paul was persecuted. The author of acts and Paul himself both agree that he was in Damascus as some point, they just disagree on the events [or lack thereof] leading up to his stay in Damascus.

Sure they do, but Arabia was not put in The Acts. I don’t know what The Acts would have said about him being there if apparently he didn’t immediately consult with anyone.**

 

[dronald]

As to Paul’s statement that he did not consult anyone, therefore meaning that contradicts what we see in acts him preaching to the Jews, I do not consider this a contradiction. By consulting he is obviously talking about the apostles and stressing that he did not need the apostles to reveal Jesus to them but he had received a special revelation from the Lord. He of course buttresses this claim by then saying he later went and conversed with the apostles (releasing the need to be in communion with them). He most certainly did not consult the Jews in acts, rather he testified to them of Christ, that he was the Christ and proved it from the scriptures. How many of us would desire that sort of gift no?

Perhaps when Paul spoke of consulting he was speaking of about Jesus specifically with the Apostles; but don’t forget the very important word, “immediately.”

Immediately could have lasted a few days, a few months, a couple years, whatever. Again, The Acts does not record anything of significance in Arabia probably because not much happened there as he did not “immediately consult with anyone.” He certainly began discussing his faith big time when he got to Damascus though.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Perhaps when Paul spoke of consulting he was speaking of about Jesus specifically with the Apostles; but don’t forget the very important word, “immediately.”

Immediately could have lasted a few days, a few months, a couple years, whatever. Again, The Acts does not record anything of significance in Arabia probably because not much happened there as he did not “immediately consult with anyone.” He certainly began discussing his faith big time when he got to Damascus though.

That’s my exact thought on the subject actually.

 

[drac16]

Ok, I suppose that the two accounts of Paul’s traveling [Acts 9, Galatians 1] can be reconciled. Thank you for this healthy dialogue, Dronald and Ignatian.

 

[Pleroma]

A. The Church did not “suppress a secret Pauline mystery”.
They squished writings of a man claiming to be Paul’s
disciple. Why? The writings have nothing to do with
“Christ” but instead Valentinus put forth a Christ who
had no material physical body, as a result never
suffered and died, therefore never resurrected.
We don’t know who that person is but definitely
not Christ or Christian in origen.

The entire Valentinian cosmology, cosmogony and eschatalogy is derived from the biblical canon. Valentinians held the highest pleromic interpretation of the bible. Pauline epistles and the Gospel of John forms the very foundations of our theology.

Of course, the psychic Christians do not know about the pneumatic Christ, they only know the psychic son of the demiurge. The pneumatic Christ is the Christ in you, the hope of our glory. No Christian denomination or sect recognize the pneumatic Christ, you people don’t even believe in him and hence orthodox Christianity is corrupted, your hearts are corrupted, those who do not believe in the pneumatic Christ does not receive anything.

If the Valentinian exegesis is not Christian then the Pauline epistles and Gospel of John are not Christian either. Saint Paul is not a Christian, the author of Gospel of John is not a Christian. Tell me what a set of non-Christian (Pauline epistles and Gospel of John) texts doing in your biblical canon?

 

[Pleroma]

In response to Pleroma

In terms of the idea of the demi urge, I see no reason to associate it with the secret or true teachings of Jesus Christ. We would have to do away with the gospels and with all of the New testament if that is the case, for they all clearly show a faith and dependency on the Old testament for their claims concerning Jesus and their baseline Judaic faith. Jesus in terms of being understood historically is to be best understood as a Jew, not as a cynic philosophy or neo Platonist, such ideas are rather unsatisfactory in explaining many of the gospel sayings.

We cannot make sense of Luke’s account of resurrection that Jesus, the risen Christ ate fish. What is the spiritual interpretation to that?

I do not see in the writings of the New Testament the clearly defined gnostic systems we see fully developed in the second century, mid second century that is. Rather we see a faith which has at its root a Judaic outlook on the world, that God, the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob was working through Israel to bring something into the world, namely Jesus Christ.

The risen Christ was only a phantasm and was destitute of the substance of flesh. Christians need not wait for the second coming instead they can embrace their angel right here and now. Is there any reason that a spiritual body should not eat fish? The psychic Christians are lower Christians who are always interested only in the fleshly and not of the matters of spiritual which was the main message of Jesus Christ.

“Those who think that they will die first and then rise are in error, if they do not first receive the resurrection while they live when they die they receive nothing”

• Gospel of Philip

Orthodox Christians will not receive anything from the pneumatic Christ.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

The risen Christ was only a phantasm and was destitute of the substance of flesh. Christians need not wait for the second coming instead they can embrace their angel right here and now. Is there any reason that a spiritual body should not eat fish? The psychic Christians are lower Christians who are always interested only in the fleshly and not of the matters of spiritual which was the main message of Jesus Christ.

“Those who think that they will die first and then rise are in error, if they do not first receive the resurrection while they live when they die they receive nothing”

• Gospel of Philip

Orthodox Christians will not receive anything from the pneumatic Christ.

What I don’t understand is this: If the disciples did not ultimately believe in a physical resurrection, then why make the point that Christ was touched by a doubting Thomas in John’s gospel, and why mention that he ate fish at all? You claim that a spiritual body can eat fish but it instead looks to me that Luke and John were trying to make the point that Jesus was physically there among them. A glorious presence, certainly, but real and substantial nonetheless. I’d venture to say that that is also why the early orthodox Christians emphasized so emphatically the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[dronald]

Ok, I suppose that the two accounts of Paul’s traveling [Acts 9, Galatians 1] can be reconciled. Thank you for this healthy dialogue, Dronald and Ignatian.

Thank you my friend.

I’m still curious what it is that you believe about Peter; and also what you believe about the basket story?

Also, I’ve looked but I can’t find anything, perhaps because the original is in Arabic and still remains but I would really like to know who first claimed Deut 18:18 was about Muhammad. Even if it was in the 1800’s, it would be helpful for my understanding of some development in Islamic beliefs.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

The risen Christ was only a phantasm and was destitute of the substance of flesh. Christians need not wait for the second coming instead they can embrace their angel right here and now. Is there any reason that a spiritual body should not eat fish? The psychic Christians are lower Christians who are always interested only in the fleshly and not of the matters of spiritual which was the main message of Jesus Christ.

“Those who think that they will die first and then rise are in error, if they do not first receive the resurrection while they live when they die they receive nothing”

• Gospel of Philip

Orthodox Christians will not receive anything from the pneumatic Christ.

The gospel of Philip should be trusted why exactly? I will trust the new testament which is far more ancient and far more authoritative than anything in the Gnostic gospels. But how can the real Christians be not interested in the fleshly when Christ himself took on flesh? Do you trust the gospel of John? The word became flesh, he says and I believe him.

How do we resolve our difference? Can you point to a text earlier than the gospel of John or the new testament?

I would like to add that I am disappointed that the bahai have not interacted in this thread much. They have made the claim time and time again that man introduced a false understanding in Christianity and Hope they will be able to argue for that position.

 

[Matthew_Light]

I would like to add that I am disappointed that the bahai have not interacted in this thread much. They have made the claim time and time again that man introduced a false understanding in Christianity and Hope they will be able to argue for that position.

I don’t find any value to argue for my religion by attacking others beliefs!

I understand that there are Baha’is who think they need to convince others to leave their religions, that they ought to become Baha’is instead. And they come up with elaborate reasons why this is important.

I understand the Baha’i teachings very differently. I’d much rather foster and encourage Christians and Muslims and Buddhists, etc. to come to more universalist understandings of their own religion and its relationship with others and demonstrate that to their own brothers in sisters.

The Baha’i teaching unity of religion does not mean (in my understanding!) that everyone converts to my religion!

The truth is - if we all love and respect one another and our different ways of understanding and worshiping God, if we all serve humanity with selflessness, if we stop attacking one another as deluded or, worse yet, deceived by Satan - this planet will in fact become a manifestation of Christ’s Kingdom.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I don’t find any value to argue for my religion by attacking others beliefs!

I understand that there are Baha’is who think they need to convince others to leave their religions, that they ought to become Baha’is instead. And they come up with elaborate reasons why this is important.

I understand the Baha’i teachings very differently. I’d much rather foster and encourage Christians and Muslims and Buddhists, etc. to come to more universalist understandings of their own religion and its relationship with others and demonstrate that to their own brothers in sisters.

The Baha’i teaching unity of religion does not mean (in my understanding!) that everyone converts to my religion!

The truth is - if we all love and respect one another and our different ways of understanding and worshiping God, if we all serve humanity with selflessness, if we stop attacking one another as deluded or, worse yet, deceived by Satan - this planet will in fact become a manifestation of Christ’s Kingdom.

The problem is the implicit assumption in the bahai faith that a new manifestation is only needed when the previous revelation has been so diluted. You would say the Jew didn’t get it, hence why they needed Jesus. The Christians didn’t get it, hence why they needed Muhammad. The Muslims didn’t get it and so they needed Ali Hussain. Your very faith challanges Christianity in its denial of our doctrines and dogmas.

It is a problem for the bahai if the mainstream Christian teachings can be found within all the centuries, even within a primitive form, your religion is proven untrue. For instance, the resurrection of Jesus. We find it firmly established in the second century by the Orthodox Catholic church as being physical resurrection. The gnostics disagreed with this, yet we do not find your teacher praising the gnostics for their ostensibly bahai faith, rather he says that the true Christians were the Catholics. The quran implies the same thing, that those whom were victorious would persist to the day of resurrection and theres only one group that could be considered victorious in that they survived and had essentially the control of an empire. All the others perished.

I pointed this out in the other thread, that you cannot reconcile our contradictions. To which the only response the bahai can give is that they do not contradict genuine Christianity, only the Christianity of men, of the church fathers as it were. Its my contention that is not the case.

Now can you agree with what I said? I don’t think you can.

 

[Matthew_Light]

I pointed this out in the other thread, that you cannot reconcile our contradictions. To which the only response the bahai can give is that they do not contradict genuine Christianity, only the Christianity of men, of the church fathers as it were. Its my contention that is not the case.

Now can you agree with what I said? I don’t think you can.

I think you are in a paradigm where for me to be right you have to be wrong, and vice versa.

And that the proper activity for religious people is to battle one another in the realm of ideas until one idea defeats all the other ones and is triumphant and ascendant.

I don’t agree with that paradigm, instead I see God inspiring people from every religion to do His work of building His spiritual kingdom here on the Earth. I don’t want to bash them and show why their religions are not good enough!

I am finding more and more people from many other faiths who share my understanding, who are tired of the arguments, tired of dismissing others genuine inspiration by the Holy Spirit, tired of believing we have to destroy other people’s heartfelt understanding of the Good and that is somehow service to God.

I reach out to those who see with this vision in joy - I see no distinction whether they are Muslim or Ahmadiyyah or Quaker or Catholic or Baha’i. I don’t care what religion they are. I simply want to foster that vision of reality in every religious community.

I will let Catholics with that understanding share it with other Catholics who don’t - I will let Jews with a universalizing viewpoint explain it to other Jews - I will let Orthodox who agree with this spirit of unity demonstrate it to others who are Orthodox.

What religion people belong to? It’s just not nearly as important as how we love our fellow human beings, whether we treat them as anathema or as fellow children of one God.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I think you are in a paradigm where for me to be right you have to be wrong, and vice versa.

And that the proper activity for religious people is to battle one another in the realm of ideas until one idea defeats all the other ones and is triumphant and ascendant.

I don’t agree with that paradigm, instead I see God inspiring people from every religion to do His work of building His spiritual kingdom here on the Earth. I don’t want to bash them and show why their religions are not good enough!

I am finding more and more people from many other faiths who share my understanding, who are tired of the arguments, tired of dismissing others genuine inspiration by the Holy Spirit, tired of believing we have to destroy other people’s heartfelt understanding of the Good and that is somehow service to God.

I reach out to those who see with this vision in joy - I see no distinction whether they are Muslim or Ahmadiyyah or Quaker or Catholic or Baha’i. I don’t care what religion they are. I simply want to foster that vision of reality in every religious community.

I will let Catholics with that understanding share it with other Catholics who don’t - I will let Jews with a universalizing viewpoint explain it to other Jews - I will let Orthodox who agree with this spirit of unity demonstrate it to others who are Orthodox.

What religion people belong to? It’s just not nearly as important as how we love our fellow human beings, whether we treat them as anathema or as fellow children of one God.

Your paradigm would ignore the differences though. Have us say they are unimportant. But they are not unimportant.Is it unimportant in your eyes that we worship that which is not God? Namely Jesus Christ? How do you accept that as a good idea of God? Do you trust in the bible? Was God satisfied to let the hebrews worship how they wanted? Or did he condemn them for worshipping foreign gods? Condemn them for making idols.

I say what religion we belong to is of immense importance. You seem to be of the secularist kind, wherein religious truths are unimportant and should be avoided in discussion because they only reveal how different we are.

But this is not the thread to discuss this. There is another thread for that. I will respond to you there should you choose to respond to this here.

 

[Pleroma]

The gospel of Philip should be trusted why exactly? I will trust the new testament which is far more ancient and far more authoritative than anything in the Gnostic gospels. But how can the real Christians be not interested in the fleshly when Christ himself took on flesh? Do you trust the gospel of John? The word became flesh, he says and I believe him.

How do we resolve our difference? Can you point to a text earlier than the gospel of John or the new testament?

What orthodox Christians don’t understand is that there are two kinds of resurrection, a spiritual resurrection and the resurrection of the spiritual body.

Jesus under went the first kind of resurrection when he was baptized by John the baptist. He was born again. This is the spiritual resurrection, its also called the resurrection of the dead, here dead means not literally dead, it means this resurrection is for those who are spiritually dead and even Jesus required baptism. So baptism leads to redemption and resurrection.

The “Word” represents the divine Savior (The pneumatic Christ) and the flesh represents the human Jesus. So the Savior (pneumatic Christ) descended upon the human Jesus at the time of his baptism and it is in this context that we have to understand the statement of John, “The Word became flesh”.

Matthew 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.

The Savior flew out of the human body of Jesus at the time of his crucifixion and he raised the spiritual body of Jesus and redeemed him, this is the resurrection of the second kind, the resurrection of the spiritual body. The human Jesus is one thing and the divine Christ is another.

In either of the resurrection there is no indication of a physical resurrection because flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, the perishable cannot enter the domain of the imperishable.

Resurrection has not been promised to bodies and those who think it is are in a big error.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

The categories of the word resurrection, anastasis, in the first century were more or less limited to physical resurrection of the dead. The Greeks generally denied the existence of such a thing, even in their own myths, even in their own philosophers. We can also take the Hebrew use of resurrection which does not describe any personal inward state but reflects the general resurrection at the end of time. We see this reflected in Hebrew scriptures and documents like the following.

Daniel 12 “At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise[a] will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. 4 But you, Daniel, roll up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge.”

This isn’t anything spiritual he is describing, but the cataclysmic ending of the universe in which the early is transformed, the dead awaken some to eternal life and some to eternal condemnation.

For a more relevant text regarding the understanding of resurrection, as the Jews saw it, we need look to the Maccabean books. Specifically 2nd Maccabees. The famous account of the mother and her seven sons, her plea to her last remaining son not to deny the laws of God.

2 mac 7 [22] “I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you.
[23] Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws.”

We can also generally contrast the opinions of the Pharisees with that of the saducees, who rejected the resurrection.

I do not believe your categories of defining resurrection can be sustained as a thought that would have occurred among the Jewish believers in Jesus Christ. Nor do I believe that to reflect the gospels. Resurrection has a set meaning and we would do well not misuse the word. What you are a preaching I do not believe can be demonstrated as the thoughts of Jesus or any of his apostles, at least when we look and compare them to the jewish thought of their day.

Resurrection is physically rising from the dead. Baptism is being dosed in water with the spirit. Resurrection is not receiving the spirit into one’s self. Paul nor any of the new testament writers do not speak that way when concerning it.

 

[marywarfield]

What orthodox Christians don’t understand is that there are two kinds of resurrection, a spiritual resurrection and the resurrection of the spiritual body.

Jesus under went the first kind of resurrection when he was baptized by John the baptist. He was born again. This is the spiritual resurrection, its also called the resurrection of the dead, here dead means not literally dead, it means this resurrection is for those who are spiritually dead and even Jesus required baptism. So baptism leads to redemption and resurrection.

The “Word” represents the divine Savior (The pneumatic Christ) and the flesh represents the human Jesus. So the Savior (pneumatic Christ) descended upon the human Jesus at the time of his baptism and it is in this context that we have to understand the statement of John, “The Word became flesh”.

Matthew 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.

The Savior flew out of the human body of Jesus at the time of his crucifixion and he raised the spiritual body of Jesus and redeemed him, this is the resurrection of the second kind, the resurrection of the spiritual body. The human Jesus is one thing and the divine Christ is another.

In either of the resurrection there is no indication of a physical resurrection because flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, the perishable cannot enter the domain of the imperishable.

Resurrection has not been promised to bodies and those who think it is are in a big error.

You do realize this has it’s closet parellel to the thinking
of the LDS? It also rejects Judaism altogether. I.e.
Elijah was taken in human body to Heaven.

When Judaism is rejected one can have no true
Christian doctrine.

 

[Pleroma]

You do realize this has it’s closet parellel to the thinking
of the LDS? It also rejects Judaism altogether. I.e.
Elijah was taken in human body to Heaven.

When Judaism is rejected one can have no true
Christian doctrine.

I do not want to know what the LDS think and we have no parallels with the LDS and We do not reject Judaism. It shows how little the orthodox Christians know about the Savior.

John 3:13 “No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.”

This clearly shows that the Bible speaks about two different heavens, one is the heaven which is outside the Pleroma, the heaven of the Craftsmen, the demiurge, the God of the Jews and the other heaven is the abode of the Aeons, the Pleroma itself. The Savior descended from the Pleroma and the human Jesus descended from the abode of the Craftsmen.

That’s why the Savior says that he existed even before Abraham was born, you people know nothing of the mysteries in the Gospel of John nor in the epistles of Saint Paul.

John 8 So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” 59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.

This is what I mean that the orthodox Christians are lower Christians meaning that their salvation is not of the highest heaven but only up to the heaven where the demiurge lives. Believe me no physical body will enter the Pleroma, it is absurd because all our physical bodies is just an illusion, its not real at all, this world is an image of the Pleroma, its not real.

“Do not assume that the resurrection is an illusion, it is not an illusion. In fact one ought to maintain that the world is an illusion rather than resurrection”.

• Treatise on Resurrection.

When Christ himself was sent by Abraxas and not by the God of the Jews, I don’t understand why you are so adamant that a Christian doctrine should be sub-ordinate to the doctrine of the Jews. Our Savior belongs to the Gentiles as much as he belongs to the Jews and he treats everyone equally irrespective of whether he is a Jew or a Gentile. He is the first-born of the creation and he exists before anyone was ever born, even before the God of the Jews.